10

In just 100 days in 1994, some 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda.

Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was the overseer of the peacekeeping mission there. He had a small garrison of peacekeepers.

When he requested for more peacekeepers from UN why didn't the UN listen to him?

  • 1
    It's a long story: nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53 – Fizz Sep 1 '18 at 21:31
  • 1
    For a more recent take: ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20150403-rwanda-rapporteur-report.pdf – Fizz Sep 1 '18 at 21:39
  • 1
    I think France was actually in support of the perpetrators. One of those French affairs in Africa that makes you ashamed of being human. – user1721135 Sep 2 '18 at 8:15
  • It was right after Somalia and the Balkans were just heating up? – o.m. Sep 2 '18 at 11:27
  • 1
    @mvr950 If you found a satisfactory answer to your query, then you are encouraged to post your own answer. I look forward to reading it. – Joel Harmon Sep 2 '18 at 13:30
8

Why didn't the United Nation send Peacekeepers to Rwanda?


Short Answer:

UN Peace Keepers were in Rwanda before and during the Genocide. They were ordered not to protect the Tutsis and concentrate on safeguarding foreign nationals. Effectively ordered to allow the genocide to take place by The UN Security Council, which was influenced by previous losses of UN peacekeepers in the region, the reassurances of representatives from the genocidal regime, ignorance of the facts on the ground, and worried about domestic politics.

  • US represented by Madeleine Albright tried to remove US troops 4 days before the outbreak of genocide.
  • UK representative Sir David Hannay, didn't think the UN had the resources on the ground to do more than aid the Foreigners.
  • The security council was fearful of sending in more troops because of previous murders of UN troops in the region and the pressure of their domestic politics.

Detailed Answer:

The United Nations had peacekeepers in Rwanda throughout the Genocide. According to an article by theconversation.com:

A lightly armed force of approximately 2,500 peacekeepers would help implement the Arusha Agreement, a 1993 peace accord that ended the civil war between Rwanda’s Hutu government and the Tutsi liberation movement, the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

Instead of overseeing national reconciliation, U.N. soldiers became eyewitnesses to genocide.

Peace Keepers are different than Peace Makers, something the UN is extremely hesitant to do. When all out war broke out the UN Peace Keepers were ordered to stand down and not protect the Tutsis from being slaughtered by the Hutu; but rather concentrate on evacuating foreigners.

Lessons from the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, 25 years after the genocide it failed to stop
As the mass killings began, the U.N. ordered its blue helmeted troops to evacuate foreigners – but not intervene to save the Tutsis from slaughter. Between 800,000 and 1 million Tutsi and non-extremist Hutu civilians were murdered by their own neighbors.

From an article on declassified Papers released in 2014:

Inside the UN Security Council: April–July 1994 United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Czech Republic Declassified Documents Reveal New Perspectives on United Nations Security Council Debates on Rwanda in April 1994

The diplomatic cables, which supplement previously released United States and United Nations telegrams, show that non-aligned states led by Nigeria attempted to strengthen the UN peacekeeping force, known as UNAMIR, but failed to provide the required resources. The United States and other permanent members of the Security Council were scarred by the murders of UN peacekeepers in both Rwanda and Somalia, and unwilling to take any action that might prove unpopular domestically. Thus the UN Forces were ordered to stand aside.

  • Threats by the Clinton administration to withdraw peacekeepers from Rwanda, even before April 6. The day before the shooting down of the presidential plane, Washington linked a three-month extension of UNAMIR [Document 2] to progress on implementing the Arusha peace agreements. According to Keating, the U.S. wanted to keep Rwanda on "a short leash" [Document 1] as a means of bringing pressure on the warring parties to meet their obligations under the peace accords.
  • The decision by US policy-makers to push for withdrawal of UNAMIR. On April 11, four days after the start of the genocide, Keating reported "a growing feeling" on the part of US diplomats that UNAMIR "withdrawal may be necessary." [Document 4] On April 12, U.S. ambassador Madeleine Albright cabled Washington [Document 5] to propose "taking the lead in the Security Council to authorize the evacuation of the bulk of UNAMIR while leaving behind a skeletal staff." Albright reported a closing "window of opportunity" to withdraw the peacekeepers while Kigali airport "is still open and under French-Belgian control."
  • Opposition to the presence of foreign forces by the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front. The RPF accepted the existing UN presence in Kigali, but was deeply suspicious of French and Belgian forces deployed in Rwanda to evacuate foreigners. The RPF threatened to treat such forces as "hostile" [Document 3] unless they withdrew from the country by April 14 at the latest. [Document 6]
  • The voice of skepticism. Sir David Hannay of the United Kingdom argued on April 14 that the goal of protecting civilians in Rwanda was "simply not achievable" [Document 8] with the limited resources available to the UN. On April 25, the UK ambassador warned that there was " no point in promising what we could not deliver." [Document 12]
  • Obstruction by the Rwandan government. The Security Council deliberations were complicated by the presence of a representative of the genocidal regime in Rwanda, Jean-Damascene Bizimana. According to Hannay, the Rwandan envoy persuaded other non-aligned ambassadors [Document 14] to block use of the word "genocide" to describe events in Rwanda on April 30. A handwritten annotation on the presidential statement drafted by Ambassador Keating records that "Rwanda/NAM wouldn't allow the term genocide." [Document 13]
| improve this answer | |
  • Good answer. Several remarks however. First, there was some pushback by Western governments, possibly the Clinton administration, about the use of the word "genocide" in official communication. They were worried that that would trigger automatic duty-to-intervene legislation. Second, the Hutus had good reasons to distrust Belgians - their colonial system was built on the good old British of coopting a minority - the Tutsis - to rule over the majority - the Hutus. The Tutsis already did it before the Belgians, Belgium just continued. Third, this was right after Mogadishu battle in 93. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Oct 22 at 16:43
  • 1
    But, yes, overall a massive, massive, fail by Western governments. Which for a while continued on in Yugoslavia - Sarajevo & Srebenica. Refusal to confront evil head on. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Oct 22 at 16:45
  • It is a bit easy to blame governments when the reality is that the minute you get involved you will be blamed for any further death or mishap when actual war and conflict will always have plenty of both. So the reluctance was deep within western populations overall. Yugoslavia being an excellent point. If you do not get countries being interested in getting mud on them to stop an ethnic conflict in Europe at their doorstep, why would they in Africa? – mangalores-x_x Oct 23 at 12:23
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica the siege of Sarajevo was almost two years old when the Rwandan genocide took place. – phoog Oct 27 at 15:16
  • @phoog true, but Srebenica was in July 95. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Oct 27 at 20:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .